One of the most common accusations heard from creationists is that "evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven". Such assertions are also heard from conservatives who give political support to the creationists. For instance, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience, concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed." (cited in Berra 1990, p. 123, Wills 1990 p. 120, and Eldredge 1982 p. 2

This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. The distinction between these is important in understanding and in countering creationist arguments, since the word "theory" also has a popular usage that is quite different from its scientific meaning (the vast majority of the US population--some studies have indicated as high as 95%--are in essence scientifically illiterate, and have only the vaguest grasp of modern scientific thinking, and the creationists always make a point of appealing to this popular ignorance).

In the popular view, the word "theory" means simply something that is unproven--an assertion which may or may not be true. It is this meaning which the creationists refer to when they assert that evolution is "just a theory", the implication being that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then it should have no more standing than creation "science". In science, however, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data. This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say "theory").

Once a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against the data (both old and new) to see how well it fits with the established facts. If the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, then it must be either modified and tested again, or discarded completely and a new hypothesis formed. Once a hypothesis has passed the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific theory--i.e., it becomes an established framework within which to interpret the relationship of various bits of raw data. On the basis of this theory, new hypotheses are formed, and areas in which new data may be gathered are identified. If the theory continues to correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly predict the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high degree of reliability. Such a theory is not a mere supposition or guess; it is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability.

When a related group of theories are correlated to one another and demonstrate the ability to be predictive and to explain the data, they form a scientific model. Models are the intellectual framework within which vast areas of particular data are explained and described. They also serve to indicate potential new areas of research and new hypotheses which can be tested to see if they can be integrated into the model.

An example may help to illustrate these distinctions. Observational data indicates to us that we can see the masts of tall ships while they are still far out on the horizon, before we can see the deck or the hull. We can also observe that the shadow of the earth, cast upon the moon during a rare eclipse, appears to be circular. We can therefore formulate the hypothesis that the earth is round. This would explain all of our data. Using this hypothesis, we can predict that, if the earth is indeed a sphere, we should be able to sail completely around the earth without falling off or coming to an edge. And, if this experiment is performed, we find that we can indeed do so. Our hypothesis has now been verified by experimentation, shows itself capable of correlating a variety of disparate data, and shows an ability to be predictive, and is therefore established as a scientific theory, the Theory of the Round Earth.

If we combine our theory of the round earth with other theories such as the theory of a round moon and a theory of heliocentrism, we can formulate a model--the moon orbits around the earth, the earth orbits around the sun, and all are part of a system of planets orbiting around a central star. This is the model of the heliocentric solar system.

Please note that none of this is to be treated as an absolute fact. It is entirely possible that some later observation or data will completely upset our model. Many times, a model must be modified and altered in order to explain new data or to expand its explanatory power. No scientific model can be viewed as an absolute proof. Perhaps at some point in time the shadow of the earth upon the moon will be seen to be a square, or perhaps one day we will see that the moon does not really revolve around the earth. However, based upon all of the data we possess currently, we can conclude that neither of these possibilities is very likely, and we are justified in having a high degree of confidence in the solar system model. Although it has not been (and cannot logically be) proven to an absolute certainty, it has been verified by every experiment we have conducted so far, and it has proven to have profound predictive power.

_________________________

Now, on the Olmec-Africa thing, I have a couple of peer-reviewed papers I could share, in pdf format.

I can only post the abstract of one of them, for the other doesn't allow for text selection and subsequent cut-and-paste.

They Were NOT Here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s

This essay responds to a theory that has been aggressively promoted as fact by an influential group of Afrocentrists in recent years -that New World civili- zations were created or were influenced by African visitors at key points in the centuries that preceded the European discovery of the Americas. As discussed in this essay, the theory is shown to have no support in the evidence that has been analyzed by specialists in various fields. The essay focuses on the methodological approaches employed by Afrocentrists in their study of linguistics, terracotta figu- rines, technological development, and monumental sculpture. A concluding section briefly discusses the repercussions of this theory on ethnic relations in schools, on college campuses, and in North American society as a whole.

__________________"Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." - Tyler Durden

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell (copied from the most honorable KA)

Peltier's Beat Goes OnI pay taxes because those in law enforcement or the military industrial complex
depend on me to "Support the Police" & "Support The Troops"
or in other words to pay for their welfare and socialism benefits.

Why I can't agree with the statement I posted? Is there some sort of pseudo soy rule of thumb that you may not agree with something posted? I would ask you such a question, "why post nonsensical and meaningless comebacks?" Can't you learn you ignore things if you don't like what's posted? You're starting to come off as a real forum nazi/ Moderator back-seater.

__________________
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” - Plato

" What is past and cannot be prevented should not be grieved for" - American Indian Proverb

Are you having problems in your life right now? You "sound" erratic and make no sense whatsoever.

My comment makes perfect sense and is easy to understand. It is a simple question, which asks why you are posting senseless ("mmhhmm") and meaningless comments (like focusing on people supposedly being "butt hurt" and "get[ting] [their] panty in a bunch") in a somewhat serious thread.

At no point did I tell you, ask you, or even advised you to stop. I merely asked a simple question: why?; a question you have avoided with yet another senseless comment.

So either you're being deliberately annoying and immature, or you are having emotional problems causing this behavior.

__________________"Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." - Tyler Durden

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell (copied from the most honorable KA)

I haven't had the time to answer or give an opinion on what everyone is saying. Though I have been following it. I honestly thought that after creating this thread I would recieve anti-TlacuiloPilo rant. But, actually, I am surprised how well it went with everyone pitching in.

If we want to continue this thread, I would recommend to see this topic from a genealogical point of view, as I originally intended. In history, there is a lot of weight on the Mexica, and even the Maya. But I wanted to point out straight genealogical realities, from which we all descend. With this is mind, we have to think of Tollan Mexico Tenochtitlan as a city, beautiful and grand, but still just one city. They conquered, but rarely colonized at big scale as the Zapotecs or Teochichimecas did.

If you were at those times, and you left the big city of Tenochtitlan, you would be almost automatically in another country. To the north Cuauhtitlan, for instance, was another nation, and they called themselves the Cuauhtitlancalque, to the south Xochimilco, and they were known as Xochimilcas, to the east Texcoco, capital of Acolhuacan, they were the acolhuas, and cousins of the teochichimecas. To the west, Atzcapotzalco, once the high capital of the known world, and they were known as Tecpanecas, cousins of the acolhuas and matlatzincas. And they were more, including small pockets of Otomi settlements (like today's Cuajimalpa). Just by these you can see that the Mexica were almost a genealogical island, with the strong exception of royalty.